Enlightenment Essay Example for Free

Enlightenment EssayImmanuel KantIn December 1783 Johann Friedrich Zllner published an article in Berlinische Monatsschrift that stated his opposition to civil marriage, an idea proposed in a previous issue of the journal. Zllner wrote that the foundations of morality had been shaken in the name of enlightenment and concluded his piece with the principal what is enlightenment? Zllner asserted that this question must first be answered before one begins to enlighten1. Immanuel Kants reply to Zllners question is often considered the nigh famous and most important. In his essay, Kant succinctly step forwardlined his opinion on what enlightenment is, the obstacles to enlightenment and how single(a)ists achieve enlightenment.Kant defined enlightenment as mans release from his egotism-incurred fear and the courage to use your own basis2. Kant believed that laziness and cowardice were the prime reasons why numerous men remained un-enlightened3. Kant asserted that people refused to throw off the yoke of voluntary tutelage because it was easier to profits people to think for them and run their lives4. As Kant put it a person could pay to buy a book to serve as understanding, a pastor to serve as a conscience and a physician to determine a diet. There was no real need for an individual to exert their own will or their own reason since these benevolent guardians would take over an individuals life for them5. The act of enlightenment, therefore, was the act of rejecting this easygoing form of life and asserting the primacy of your individual reason to reject the conventions of the social guardians who Kant asserted herded hostelry like docile, dumb livestock6.It is necessary to understand Kants rendering of enlightenment in stray to gain rough understanding of what Kant musical theme was an enlightened age and what was an age of enlightenment. Kant argued that obstacles to individual enlightenment went beyond self-imposed obstacles. granting immunity was the essential ingredient for enlightenment. Society, however, imposed restrictions on freedom through laws and religion that constrained free opinion through law, convention or threat. Knowledge was in addition a requirement still access to it was often very restricted and guarded in late eighteenth century atomic number 63 but attempts were cosmos do to bring knowledge to the masses. An age of enlightenment was a time when obstacles to enlightenment were being removed or eroded, Kant believed that late eighteenth century Europe was in such an age. As a society granted more than freedom, it became more enlightened. An enlightened age, therefore, was an age when obstacles had been removed and individuals and society were enlightened and free to pursue self determination and self rationalization7.Kant did not try to assert that the only path to freedom lay on the path of revolution. Revolutions, according to Kant, merely replaced old prejudices with b ar-assed prejudices8. Kant acknowledged that for a society to function properly, for a government to help its people, it was often necessary for an individual to narrowly restrict their reason in the credit line of their job or duties. Kant defined this as private reason and deemed it a necessity. Kant used an example of how disastrous it would be for an office to question the appropriateness of an order rather than obeying it9. The private use of reason was offset by an individuals public use of reason. In this form of reason the individual takes upon the cape of a scholar who has complete freedom, indeed even the calling, to impart to the public all of his carefully considered and well-intentioned thoughts10. Private reason would compel an individual to pay a tax, public reason would compel the individual to speak out against the necessity of the tax.These two forms of reason allow a society as a whole to move towards enlightenment on the thoughts of enlightened individuals who are active members of society serving as agents of change but not necessarily revolution. As a society becomes more enlightened, individuals are freer to act upon the enlightened opinions reached through their public role as a scholar. This is a gradual process and Kants defense of the necessity of private reason implies that a disobedient society itself is an obstacle to enlightenment11. The strength of Kants arguments lay in the context of when and where he wrote them. Kant lived in a monarchical society that allowed for little individual freedom or representation. Kants evolutionary nature of enlightenment worked well in a society that is essentially not free. History proved that societies that gradually allowed more and more freedom were able to maintain stability and encourage at least a small group of scholars to try to lead societys trip to enlightenment. A steadily evolution towards enlightenment will work in a society that is more restrictive or less representative of the people because the slo w rate of changes will still be perceived as changes and many will be patient with a slow but steadily progression of change.In a more representative form of government, however, revolutions are build into the government through elections. If the elected leaders do not implement the ideas of those who elected them, the people become dissatisfied and disobedient. So obstacles to enlightenment can be increased. However, such systems by nature are built to accept and expect a fairly rapid pace of change that would not be potential in a monarchy. New ideas can be implemented nearly every election so in this regard revolution, which in this regard are elections. If quick change is not implemented then the people grow frustrated and disobedient. The dynamic is more complex than in a monarchy.Freedom of thought is all that is required for individual enlightenment. Even the most repressive regimes find it impossible to block an individual from thinking. So to some degree Kant doesnt allow for enlightenment to happen in the absence of freedom. The freedom to think and act upon those thoughts is the definition of Kants public reason. But Kants definition of private reason seems incomplete. While it is necessary for an individual to restrict their opinions based on duty or situation, that act does not restrict individual enlightenment. The full scope of what Kant depict as a public scholar is the freedom to think and give voice to those thoughts, a private reason may also exist that allows an individual to think but not be able to give voice to such thoughts.This is different from sublimating their opinions to perform a duty. This is done perhaps more out of fear than a sense of duty. A soldier may not be free to question an order but in a more repressive society an enlightened individual may not be free to give voice to their opinions without penalty of death. In such a reference is an individual a coward or lazy? Certainly it takes a high degree of courage to speak out but to call those not free to die for their opinions but how are self realized enough to have those opinions cowards is not just nor fair. In a way Kant both argues against revolution but calls those unwilling to rebel in restrictive cases cowards. So he undercuts his own argument if its taken out of the context in which he wrote it where thought was tolerated as was the scholarly debate of enlightened ideas.Immanuel Kants essay What is Enlightenment? is justly considered an important work regarding the enlightenment and reason. Kant concisely argues his opinion and presented examples to illustrate his points. The arguments made are strong and logical in the context of the monarchal society Kant lived in that while restrictive, allowed for some freedom of thought and expression. Kants arguments lose some strength when applied to different societies and governments. Sources Kant, Immanuel.What is Enlightenment? September 30, 1784.Naragon, Steve. Johann Friedrich Zllner. Manchest er College. 23 June 2011. http//www.manchester.edu/kant/bio/FullBio/ZollnerJF.html.